Rudd's 2010 animus is still hurting Labor

Kevin Rudd's jealousy and spite is reputed to have brought down Labor in 2010, and in a strange karmic twist, could do the same in 2013, writes Jonathan Green.

It was three years ago yesterday, August 21, 2010, that we last cast our votes.

Somewhat undecidedly, it must be said. If a vote is some concrete manifestation of the national dream state, then ours amounted to a sleepy study in indifference. Running between two doors, and choosing neither. Then falling, unconvinced, betwixt and between.

And now, in 2013, are we about to wake with a decisive start? We shall see.

It's hard not to reflect on the campaign of 2010 - Julia Gillard, newly prime ministerial, slugging it out cautiously with an almost equally reticent Tony Abbott, a man still refining the unrelenting art of opposition - without recalling the way in which events beyond Gillard's control conspired continually against her.

It's late July. The then PM was fresh from a Sunday evening candidate's debate in which she had pitched enthusiastically for the virtues of the ALP policy on paid maternity leave, a freshly minted idea, and of course a piece of policy now well and truly trumped by the Coalition offering of 2013.

Two days later, she had the rug pulled out from under her. On the Nine news of Tuesday July 27, Laurie Oakes had the latest in a series of Gillard-hostile scoops, scoops that clearly owed much to a steady drip of insider information.

This time the story was a bombshell, that PM Gillard had opposed the Government's paid parental leave scheme and also argued against a $30 rise to the old age pension during cabinet meetings when she was deputy PM to Kevin Rudd.

The embarrassing claims emerged on a day when the Prime Minister was forced to discuss publicly the prospects of her marrying her live-in boyfriend, Tim Mathieson, and Tony Abbott campaigned with his daughter Louise, 21, a day after his wife, Margie, joined him at a childcare launch, highlighting the differences between the leaders' personal circumstances.

...

Oakes said Ms Gillard, who was then deputy prime minister, argued that the idea that paid parental leave would be a political winner was being misconstrued.

She said people beyond child-bearing age would resent it, as would stay-at-home mothers, Oakes said. She also allegedly questioned the $14 billion cost of the pension increase on the grounds "elderly voters did not support Labor".

It knocked the wind out of the Gillard sails, and sowed that fateful seed, a seed that would sprout and flush to full maturity and choke her term as PM - the deep sense of mistrust.

But all of that was weeks and months and "there will be no carbon tax under a government I lead" away. In the then and there of that last week in July, three weeks to polling, the leak was as devastating for its sleight on Gillard's credibility as it was for its intimation of ALP division.

Someone leaked to Oakes. Someone in that cabinet room presumably. Almost everyone jumped to the one conclusion: Kevin Rudd.

"Staff writers" - that legendary News Limited beard for editorial opinion - were in no doubt at the Courier Mail: "Senior Labor sources have pointed the finger at ousted former Labor leader Kevin Rudd, and are concerned he has moved from denial to revenge."

And on it went. The constant heckling from within her own party - Rudd or no Rudd - damaged Gillard, and probably fatally, perhaps taking from her the possibility of a majority in her own right, a thing of no small consequence in the tough political play around legitimacy that would be the leitmotif of the next three years.

All of which throws the current campaign, now halfway and flagging for the ALP, into an interesting light. It is a campaign in which Kevin Rudd is spared the considerable disadvantage of having to contend with Kevin Rudd, but through a strange karmic twist is also deprived of the things that Gillard might have brought to the table this time round: a strong message round the social positives of the ALP's recent record, in education, health and disability.

All seem tainted and untouchable to team Rudd, both because they evoke a past the Rudd campaign would rather consign to a political memory hole and also, perhaps, because they bring credit to the previous regime and to that most hated of political figures, Julia Gillard.

It's a payback of a sort, a resonant tragedy of jealousy and spite, of how animus brought down one campaign and then carried through to steal possibly winning thunder from the next.

Jonathan Green is the presenter of Sunday Extra on Radio National and a former editor of The Drum. View his full profile here.

Comments (216)

Forrest Gardener:

22 Aug 2013 6:54:31am

Quote: Somewhat undecidedly, it must be said. If a vote is some concrete manifestation of the national dream state, then ours amounted to a sleepy study in indifference.

Jonathan, you mistake the will of the individual with the aggregate vote count. The close aggregate vote count as measured by electorates won and lost does not imply individual uncertainty (except in a world dominated by groupthink).

As for the rest of your piece, who'd have thought Gillard would be so much worse than Rudd? Who'd have thought it was even possible?

Jj:

22 Aug 2013 8:16:25am

You have every right to your own opinion, but please don't state it as fact: if you want to assert that Gillard's qualities were poor ('so much worse than Rudd') then provide evidence. For my money, she was an excellent PM working in incredibly difficult circumstances, and if you like I will provide evidence to support my assertation.

John:

22 Aug 2013 4:43:28pm

Can you find three others?

NDIS - not funded, in trial mode and not expected to be functional for at least the next two terms of Government;

Gonski - only part of his report was followed up, and again implementation and funding are pushed into the future. Simply a promise of funding with no explanation as to how or where improvements are to be made.

Pricing carbon - priced at $23 per tonne compared to about $5-6 per tonne by overseas administrations - and many don't have any impost at all - thus crippling our industry base.

Colmery:

22 Aug 2013 1:31:51pm

I would guess that Jj will cite the high volume of legislation negotiated through by the Gillard minority government.

I would also guess that history will assess Gillard was deposed because her presentation style was assessed by ALP candidates to be poorly regarded by a sufficient number of voters to warrant a change.

Jj asked that facts be given weight. However, facts are so boring compared to emotionally charged rants. Rants either fire up loyalty or outrage and thus attract audience. The question is; how important is this audience?

The problem is that our civilization became dominant because of science and the technology it produced. The order and civility we enjoy derives from the disciplined application of law by our institutions - all of which depend upon subjugating the populism that this site accommodates.

The ABC should serve a higher purpose. Gathering an audience merely to let them have a say is well served by commercial media. The owners of commercial media may get a bigger say than is democratically valid. However this does not justify dragging the ABC down into the confusing cacophony of populism and the threat it creates for our system of government.

Spenda:

22 Aug 2013 3:57:02pm

Here's a political fact - Today Tony Bourke on ABC 24 ran a number of videos showing a substantial number of asylum seekers complaining that they had been cheated and defrauded by people smugglers; complaining that the "product" which they paid for was not forthcoming, because instead of landing in an Australian territory, they have been taken to PNG.

In the same videos the same asylum seekers are advising others 'back home' not to make the trip because what is at the other end is not worth risking one's life for. One can take from that that it WAS worth while the Labor Govt. re-settled asylum seekers in Australia. These same asylum seekers are now saying that they want to return home, because that is preferable to PNG where they will "have nothing and have no hope of ever having anything".

Very obviously economic refugees - not really refugees at all - which is eactly what the Coalition has maintained ad in finitum. When the economics of it all no longer look rosie, back home looks rosier. Hardly people whose lives are at risk !!

$11 billion later, I wonder if Labor and and its bleeding hearts can now admit that has always been the truth of it - as proven time and time again by the Howard Policy.

Kevin O'Lemon:

22 Aug 2013 4:12:13pm

The amount of legislation passed is not necessarily a sign of a good government. Passing a lot of lousy legislation does not a good government make. And saying one thing and doing the opposite - in other words, lying - never goes down well with the voting public. Gillard deserved her fate.

"I would be more likely to play for the Dogs than take the PMship" indeed. Not to mention "There will be NO carbon tax under the government I lead."

Forrest Gardener:

Adelaide Rose:

22 Aug 2013 2:57:35pm

I'd say she was, in terms of policies that she truly believed in, an ability to negotiate with parliamentary colleagues (ALP and otherwise) and ability to understand and achieve outcomes, as good a PM as we've ever had. Her problem is that she was a lousy politician (not an insult). To be politically successful she would have needed to sell her soul and make it look like she was happy about it, she couldn't. She tried to cope by using spin doctors who only ever seemed to make her sound worse and she presided over an element of instability in her own party, magnified by a media on the hunt for a good story and finally, an opposition who cried disaster without ever having to justify their doomsday rubbish. Unscripted, she was able to stay remarkably on message, she knew her stuff and was incrredibly personable. Gillard could have been a great PM but her ascendancy into the position and the timing of her tenure all ended up biting her on the butt. As they say, timing is everything.

Rusty:

MCC:

22 Aug 2013 2:33:50pm

- 512 pieces of legislation passed during her term of office (yes not all good) but many good, & is proof of a functional parliament despite not having a majority. Check the government website for A-Z list of legislation passed.- Reforms in education, health, environment & communication are well documented. Reforms which would not be undertaken by a conservative Gov't where the rights of the individual take precedence over the rights of the community.- she was removed for 'political' reasons, not operational reasons- she presided over extremely difficult times & performed her job with grace & dignity & strong negotiation skills. (regardless of historical imperfections which we all have). The latter skill of 'Negotiation' was seen by the independants. It was not evident in Abbott at the time. Comparing priministers & periods in office is like comparing an 'apple to an orange'.

Please consider before 'glib' one lines are spoken but I'm not expecting you or the others, burke,Forrest, livo etc to take the time to research, absorb & then conclude.

JAL:

22 Aug 2013 6:35:10pm

Governments who legislate less are generally much better than those that have "record" legislation.

Firstly any new legislation means that someone livelihood has been affected. Secondly it results in more time and effort for compliance that takes someone way from their family (small business operator) or costs more money if you need to employ someone.Each additional piece of legislation results in less freedomFor a minority Government to pass "record"legislation simply means that the opposition didn't oppose the majority of the legislation and how does that reconcile with Labor spin of constant negativity of the opposition when in the legislative record that you think is a an indication of how good the Government has been actually indicates that the opposition has been highly supportive of the minority government.

Only Federal Government employees and half wits would measure a government by the amount of legislation created and I would say there is fair overlap between the two.

For everyone else the opposite would be a good measure, that is a Government that repealed "record" legislation and let the average person get on where their lives without the Bureaucratic nonsense for very little benefit that the country has been subjected too over the last 6 years.

This alone is the reason why labor will lose because of the amount of legislation that has resulted in the Government perversely invading many peoples lives like never before to the point they are lining up to vote them out.

Baz:

22 Aug 2013 3:47:33pm

Answer: Left her to face Abbott and the fact that Rupert Murdoch has firmly picked the LNP as the next government.

I mean these are people who will depict Kevin Rudd as a Nazi on the front page and given the crap that Gillard put up over the previous three years and all the sexist nonsense... yeah, Rudd did her a favor.

livo:

Mark James:

22 Aug 2013 8:45:30am

FG, Green didn't write that the close vote count in 2010 amounted to "individual uncertainty", he wrote quite clearly (and you've even quoted him) that it amounted to ("If . . . some concrete manifestation of the national dream state . . .") a national uncertainty.

awake:

22 Aug 2013 9:00:22am

What a lot of twaddle FG. Rudd and Rupert's mob set out to get her and get her they did. She made some mistakes, but no other Prime Minister has had to withstand the disgusting waves of rubbish thrown at them.

I find Abbott refusal to announce policy very unprofessional. Any business must lay out it's plans with a balanced budget to match - why not the LNP?

chipinga:

Baz:

22 Aug 2013 3:51:28pm

As compared to the LNP in the 2007 elections? Who never released full budget costings - claiming savings that were never costed and releasing policies after they'd claimed to have them all costed? Policies that were later found to be improper and an attempt at bribing marginal electorates?

Horrocks:

22 Aug 2013 11:44:14am

awake

Hmmm "Any business must lay out it's plans with a balanced budget to match"

so where is the same for the NBN, or doesn't that actually apply to the ALP, not to mention Gonski, NDIS etc. I find it funny that all the grand plans that the ALP have, including the Murray Darling don't come into effect until 2018 or 19, possibly 1or 2 elections away so past the forward estimates range as well

Dugong:

GraemeF:

22 Aug 2013 2:03:43pm

Rudd was Rupert's man in the Labor party. When Gillard got the gig Murdoch defaulted to his usual status of supporting the party that panders to big business and big money. Back to IPA wish list policies.

Baz:

22 Aug 2013 3:54:24pm

If Rudd is Rupert's man and Rupert's calling him a Nazi on the front page of the Oz... can you imagine what he'd have done to Gillard? Seems to me that she owes thanks to Rudd in some ways - hopefully next time Labor is in power (either after this election or after Abbott screws it all up) they'll finally take action and neuter Murdoch's source of power. Rupert is simply unfit to own any media outlet - he believes free speech is just for him and attempts to silence any other voice.

Steve Mount:

22 Aug 2013 2:25:46pm

awake : " Rudd and Rupert's mob set out to get her ...". Indeed.

The 'Rupert's' bit is clearly true, it was splashed over the papers, but as for the 'Rudd' bit, I have yet to see any evidence of such claims. You surely can't provide same, else you would have done so. More hot air.

An ulterior motive for your argument is suspected... gender, perhaps...

frangipani:

22 Aug 2013 12:41:51pm

Which policies with Rudd win on, Helvi? Global warming as the challenge of a generation, or cancellation of the carbon tax? A kinder, gentler, more humane policy towards refugees, or the PNG Solution? The only policy he has consistently held is that he should be PM; everything else is subject to whatever keeps him ahead in the polls.

I think Rudd and Abbott are both entirely policy-free zones. If policy matters, how can anyone vote for either of them?

Brisat:

22 Aug 2013 10:04:00pm

Helvi, the LNP are waiting till the last moment to release their policies.No doubt they well remember the milky-bar kid stealing every policy that the LNP came up with. That how he got elected, he is no different now, just a nasty little lying thieving puffball.If I was in Abbott's place I'd do the same thing too.Rudd hasn't got any policies to steal

Simon:

22 Aug 2013 10:05:42am

The only good thing that Kevin Rudd has done for the country was to get rid of Julia Gillard, although it's a shame that we won't have the satisfaction of hearing Julia's concession speech and her apology for being the worst PM ever inflicted upon the nation.

big joe:

RayS:

22 Aug 2013 10:29:02am

Curiously, senior journalists still have a superficial, simplistic and na?ve understanding of the events within the Labor Party since 2009. Two rather ridiculous stories have been floated and swallowed hook line and sinker by scribes.

The first one attributes the removal of Rudd to his poor consultation and micro-management. The hatred, slander and bile heaped on Rudd before and since he was deposed in 2010 by the dominant right wing faction is out of all proportion to any possible resentment to his personal style.

The second one is that Rudd has stalked Gillard and finally brought her down. It would be more correct to say that Rudd's refusal to go away and die totally outraged the right wing faction that had installed Gillard, causing them to wage war on Rudd's personal reputation.

We really deserve better analysis from senior journalists. It seems the machinations within the back rooms of the Labor party and their appointed factional members within the government are off limits to journalists who must be deliberately promoting the superficial micro-story of leaks and personal animosity between Rudd and Gillard or else the journalists are really thick and gullible.

All this rubbish about what Rudd did and what Gillard to one another is weak tabloid journalism and they should be ashamed to repeat it.

The real story is a dominant faction naturally wants to own the prime minister and they didn't own Rudd, so they white-anted Rudd from the end of 2009 and installed Gillard, who was a faithful servant. Only when Gillard had literally been torn to shreds by the misogynist Abbott and the relentless personal attacks by shock jocks and the propaganda storytellers of antagonistic media, the dominant faction was forced to turn back to Rudd.

The Right elevated Rudd and he won. The Right removed Rudd and installed Gillard and she barely scraped in. The Right removed Gillard and reinstalled Rudd in desperation and were weakened in the process. Rudd still carries many wounds.

Trev:

Sutika:

22 Aug 2013 10:59:38pm

Wrong. Gillard is from the Left faction of the ALP with Laurie Ferguson etc. She was not aligned to the 'faceless men' or Right faction. While I have no deep love of the Australian media, they are right that the way PM Rudd treated others and ignored policy advice from anyone else upset and worried people. I am sure there was some internal politics as well but he rubbed a lot of people up the wrong way, and in the early part of 2010 seemed to lose his grip altogether.

Alfie:

22 Aug 2013 7:09:06am

"Tony Abbott, a man still refining the unrelenting art of opposition"

Yes, the man who was once described by Labor as 'unelectable' has knocked down Rudd and Gillard and is set knock down Rudd again. Sure Labor has it's internal 'issues', but Abbott has proven to be a formidable leader. He has taken 6 years of crap from Labor and now he is set to reap the reward.

tc21:

22 Aug 2013 7:50:41am

An easy feat with the majority of the media behind you to brainwash the masses. Lets see after the election how his own policies benefit the nation, 'Direct Action' anyone? Watch this space, we have all been fooled.

Shane:

22 Aug 2013 8:33:22am

The only people who are being fooled are the rusted on Labor voters who are not willing to accept that Labor has simply failed the Australian people, with all of the backstabbing and infighting that has gone on for the last few years.

jenny:

22 Aug 2013 8:57:06am

I have thought for a long time that Abbott's "Direct Action" plan will be the first thing he ditches, claiming that he can't afford it. And the sad thing is, I believe that in their hearts a lot of people know this and really don't care.

Simon:

Dove:

22 Aug 2013 1:01:15pm

Well of course they're biased, but in a different way. You certainly don't have the ABC leading with a headline instructing its viewers to vote in a particular way, nor do they have programming devoted to achieveing the same outcome.

kash:

22 Aug 2013 3:39:37pm

Rosalie, you need to read the ABC a little more closely. Nearly every article on here, and I mean news stories, not the opinion pieces, contain sentences of blatant editorial opinion. Shocking that a reporter would inject his/her own bias into a news story. Shocking that no one on the ABC will put a stop to it. This is the NATIONAL BROADCASTER. It should be completely objective, regardless of the reporter's own stance. If the reporter can't handle it they need to get a job elsewhere.

burke:

firthy:

22 Aug 2013 2:37:57pm

Absolute rubbish. The ALP government gave the LNP so much ammo over the last 4 years (3 years of the most recent govt and the last year of the previous) that Tony Abbott, a man who many, including myself, thought was unelectable is on the cusp of being elected as PM. The ALP needs a period on the opposition benches to think about how it can run things properly next time. Bit like the process they had to go through after 1975 - and ultimately that delivered a pretty good ALP government when they were re-elected in 1983.

Skeptic:

22 Aug 2013 8:19:36am

How has Abbott knocked down either Rudd or Gillard? They were done in by their own side, weren't they? And he hasn't been getting crap, he has been dishing it out in spades. Mostly in the form of half-thought-out and uncosted "policies"...

burke:

John:

22 Aug 2013 1:11:21pm

The trouble is, Sceptic, that neither Rudd nor Gillard have had any success in combatting Abbott. In Abbott's parlance, they never laid a glove on him.

Their failure, from first to last, was that they never accepted him as the leader of the Opposition, were always convinced that he was going to self-destruct and all their thinking was based on waiting for him to be deposed.

That plan has failed spectacularly, Abbott is solidly entrenched and supported by his whole team, and the Government as a whole and Rudd in particular have absolutely no idea of what Plan B might be.

As a consequence, they are now panicking and basing their strategy on demonising the individual at the expense of creating a viable alternative.

kash:

22 Aug 2013 3:41:59pm

Insightful, John. I noticed in the first debate Rudd was obviously shocked that he was not up against a straw man. At some points he looked positively grey with stress. Their failure to anticipate his strengths is their greatest weakness. And their policy seems entirely based on discrediting him as a person.

James in Brisbane:

22 Aug 2013 8:51:46am

Mr Abbott will now have to move from slogans to solutions, no easy feat for a man who has promised far more than he can deliver. The foolishness of Hawke and his no child will live in poverty comes to mind. Abolishing taxes but vastly increasing government expenditure will be a hiding for a man whose party has also held itself out as the only path to surplus. Given that the largest area of government expenditure outside of Defence (Defence being immune to cuts) relates mostly to the elderly who are the LNP's core, it will present some self-destructive dilemmas.

Esteban:

sue:

22 Aug 2013 9:01:11am

"Knock down" is the word. One of the things he's knocked down is any respect for parliamentary process with his endless calls to suspend business for votes of no confidence he knew he couldn't win. Yes, Labor gave him plenty of ammunition. It's telling, though, that he knew no other way to handle it than full termination mode. That may have won him the next election, but it has done dreadful damage to the parliamentary system.

Bighead1883:

22 Aug 2013 9:16:10am

Alfie,I see you are using boxing terminology with your knockdown approach.So in both bouts Abbott had so far with Rudd/Gillard he may as you say had a knockdown during the election fight but lost the points decision.The important thing is to win the fight,this he so far can`t do.Presently Abbott is snatching defeat from the jaws of victory with his ppl.Rudd is all over him on this,with body punches,left and right hooks and an uppercut on TV last night.You see Rudd can`t be bullied by the bully party.Tony Abbott is a straw man,a vindictive man,a dummy spitter and has failed to bring down Labor by foul means=Utegate=Ashbygate.Abbott is about to win the trifecta,three tries for three losses.The Liberals had an intelligent man leading them.Abbott saw to it that he was done in because I believe that it`s Abbotts hand in all LNP skulduggery.The insulation scheme and BER lies of the LNP are falling on deaf ears,we`ve had 6 years of dummyspitting and frankly it`s time this toddler[LNP]grew up and got off the dummy.

CP:

22 Aug 2013 1:07:25pm

You'd rather one whom his colleagues call a psychopath, dysfunctional and evil? One, who white-anted the former Prime Minister? One who makes people cry, calls representatives from one of our biggest trading partners "rat mother$#$#$?" One who makes the representatives of all the embassies and High Commissions in Canberra line up in the cold to pay tribute? One where 8 (?) of his front bench resign when he resumes the Prime Ministership? A person who resumes the leadership of the Federal Labor Party by a mere 7 votes despite the fact that they're all going off a cliff if he doesn't come back (of that was a win, i'd hate to see a loss).

All you've got on Abbott is that he is Catholic, white and male. The easiest targets in the western world. That and the left's ceaseless and egregious ability to hate.

Terry:

22 Aug 2013 7:15:16am

When I first read this article, I was surprised. For once Mr Green appeared to be fairly reasonable, Of course he had to have his compulsory dig at Mr Abbot's "unrelenting opposition", but it was almost as if his heart wasn't in it. (When Mr Abbot is PM, will he refer to the ALP leader in opposition, whoever it is, in the same way?)

On rereading, however, I was struck by the lack of linking cause and effect. The key line was "the way in which events beyond Gillard's control conspired continually against her". While technically correct, the events were directly related to her own actions and quite predictable. Her part in the overthrow of Mr Rudd had consequences, consequences that should have been foreseen.

Similarly, the manner of Mr Rudd's elevation have consequences. He cannot afford to remind those voters still thinking of voting ALP that he broke his word and in turn overthrew Ms Gillard. That three year period must be expunged from history - Mr Rudd's shining persona must not be sullied. So the damnatio memoriae is carried out.

This is not some idle speculating on political tactics - it goes to the heart of the ALP's current problems. The party has become the spoils of victory for internal aspirants for power. There is no objective beyond power. There is no ethos, are no aims. Anything can and will be said or done to achieve the ultimate position at the top.

Those who gave their lives to support a party that had core values must be devastated at what the ALP has become: a group of power-seekers on top, a mass of minor crooks and a supporter base of rent-seekers and enthusiasts for fringe policies. Would John Curtin be proud to be leader of such a group? I doubt it.

While this may be depressing for true believers such as Mr Green, it should be faced, not denied or overlooked. Perhaps the best cure would be to mimic the success of Heracles in cleaning the Augean stables. Flush out all the rubbish and start again..

The big black hole in the whole of Labor goes beyond the diabolical deficit blow out, beyond the destructive infighting and lies in their poll driven, leadership riven desperation to retain power at any cost.

Labor have trashed the opportunity to be trusted and stamped on the good will of the people as they claw over fallen bodies to get to the finish line.

Alpo:

22 Aug 2013 8:37:49am

yys, your "The big black hole"... is a result of your Neoliberal GFC that Labor confronted with the guts that Neoliberals don't have, and it is also the result of Labor investing in infrastructure for the future economic development of this country, a concept that Liberal politicians and voters don't understand at all. The choice is stark at the next election: a Visionary Progressive Labor Government vs an Incompetent Reactionary Liberal Opposition.... The People of Australia won't "shut up"!!!

John:

22 Aug 2013 1:22:34pm

Silly comments all over again, Alpo.

The "big black hole" has arisen because Swan and Rudd threw uncontrolled loads of money at a comparatively minor problem, with no controls, no plans and no supervision. and they are still throwing uncontrolled money at it, six years after it subsided. The GFC, insofar as it affected Australia, could have been countered by a stimulus of no more than 10% of what was actually used. And they had plenty of advance warning about this. Read Warwick McKibbins's reports.

If you are worried about"big black holes", have you had a word with Penny Wong about her $160 billion black hole?

firthy:

22 Aug 2013 2:44:20pm

Another load of rubbish from you Alpo. The Republicans in the US caused the GFC not the Liberal party here in Australia (don't bother trying to link the two - on this issue they are not linked). An independent RBA setting interest rates at proper levels and APRA keeping our banks under reasonable control left us with a financial system which is the envy of the world. And who set those two things up? Peter Costello. Go read Satjit Das' book on the GFC and learn something for a change.

Forrest Gardener:

John:

22 Aug 2013 9:32:30am

Have you read the other reports on the ABC site this morning?

Jim Chalmers, the ALP candidate for the seat left vacant by Craig Emerson, used to be on Wayne Swan's staff. He has not denied describing Mr Rudd as "wasting all the opportunities in the world with his dysfunctional decision making" and and says he has a "deeply demeaning attitude" towards Caucus.

Alphamikefoxtrot:

PB:

22 Aug 2013 9:33:20am

TerryThat was so succinctly and eloquently put and its force undeniable. Even a Laborite hoping beyond hope to maintain their personal reliance on this government's vote-buying largesse could not disagree. Shows them all up really..... You need a permanent gig on the Drum.

chipinga:

Judy Bee:

22 Aug 2013 12:23:02pm

Events beyond Prime Minister Gillard's control without doubt, played a big factor. There is too much recent historical evidence to dispute this view.

However, the key point to remember is that even while this spiteful destructive position in the media and Abbott Opposition was gaining force, (and K Rudd was doing his best to regain the Prime Ministership) Julia Gillard and her competent team of Ministers and others, were achieving the implementation of worthy reforms.

The consequences of the overthrow of Kevin Rudd were apparent when Australia voted in 2010. The consequences gave Australia a hung Parliament, and the leadership went to Julila Glllard mainly through the thoughtful good judgement and wisdom of Tony Windsor and Rob Oakeshot. History has proved these men to be good judges of character under those circumstances. Many many Australians have good reasons to be grateful for their good judgement and ongoing wisdom and input into the reforms that followed.

The relentless, sexist, vitriolic punishment of Julia Gillard was pure malice, born out of the frustration felt in those who wanted Tony Abbott in the leadership. Their frustration should have been directed to the man who failed, Tony Abbott.

Esteban:

22 Aug 2013 12:38:45pm

The actions of Gillard epitomise Australian politics.

Had her primary concern been self interest she would have waited for Rudd to lose the 2010 election and subsequently taken over as leader.One or two terms later she would have won a powerful mandate without compromising herself for the greens.

Instead of self interest she put the party first to try and salvage the mess that Rudd had created.

Rudd has never put the party or country first. He has acted out of self interest and actually undermined his own party. That undermined party has bestowed him with the rewards.

Gillard acted in the best interests of the party and has been sacrificed by the party.

The message is that in Australian politics the good karma goes to the selfish and self sacrifice will not be rewarded.

Felix:

22 Aug 2013 1:13:58pm

Gillard acted in her own self interest - her ego allowed labor strategists to convince her she was the best person for the job. Oh, and no doubt wanting to be the first PM - something the voting public NEVER elected her as. It took the two low IQ independents (Dumb and Dumber) to get her over the line.

Simon:

RobP:

22 Aug 2013 10:51:39am

The way I'd put it is that Rudd is so intellectually smart, he's dangerous.What he most certainly isn't is wise. To be that, he'd have to understand how the real world works which he doesn't.That's all you really need to know about Kevin.

Dugong:

22 Aug 2013 10:52:28am

To be fair, very few of us are as smart as we would like to think we are: the difference is that gap between reality and belief for some is larger than it is for others. The name for the gap ranges from "overconfidence" to " arrogant" to "delusional".

Aquila:

22 Aug 2013 11:07:59am

I'm not sure about that. Rudd's no dummy, but he's certainly no great mind, so while it's possible that his narcissism gives him sufficient self-delusion for pretensions of status as an intellectual, I think Rudd understands the limitations of his own intelligence, but exaggerates it to build his nerdy, bookish, clever cloggs image. It's where the verbosity and pretentiousness - the programmatic specificity etc - comes from.

Perhaps Rudd's keen to contrast himself from Abbott's patently stronger physical capabilities, although it would seem that Abbott's academic record is also more impressive than Rudd's. But I can't judge, at my distance, which of the two is more intelligent.

Nodnot:

Trev:

antipostmodernism:

22 Aug 2013 8:42:57am

Its a maniacal sort of intelligence that is more like rat-cunning, and lets face it, he couldn't change a light bulb. Its power for powers sake. Its a shame he used his intelligence to actually dumb himself down to create an empty personality cult over achieving tangible things. He is in the game to overcome personal deficiencies with make it hard for him to form real relationships.

firthy:

MJMI:

22 Aug 2013 11:36:25am

You're right - Rudd scores well only on one kind of intelligence and there are many kinds.

It's Rudd's overweening self-confidence, bordering on righteousness, that I so dislike. Such a personality will always find it difficult not to be a control freak with his way as the only path. Many people find it difficult to relate to such a personality so they rarely make good leaders since they lack the ability to carry others with them.

From all accounts (and I have never met her) PM Gillard's personality was in marked contrast and she had many of the skills needed in a leader. Pity so many of her own "side", including the present PM, were continually undermining her.

tc21:

22 Aug 2013 7:48:27am

Gillard was the better leader out of all three of them and I believe Labor would have won this election with her as leader, Labors policies under Gillard were better than Abbotts which we will soon discover after the election. There is no way Labor will win under Rudd, his ego has ripped apart the Labor Party and damaged it for a generation.

GJA:

22 Aug 2013 10:57:51am

I agree that Abbott's got a united team, but that's a characteristic of the LNP itself, not a quality attributable to Abbott. Part of this is in the mind-set you see at work among LNP politicians: a corporatised born-to-rule mentality. Abbott is leader now because it's his turn, or he saw it as such and took it off Turnbull, who Labor-like took it upon himself to step up after the initial leadership failures following the '07 election. Costello expected to be PM because it was his turn, but Howard reneged and it killed them in the polls. They're a very top-down organisation, and it helps them.

While one can admire Abbott's record of charity work, this is a private matter, and speaks nothing to his public service record in office. He uses this to soften his hardcase image and a lot of people are sucked in, but he remains a bully and a narrow-minded ideologue.

Julia B:

22 Aug 2013 11:17:35am

So for this election, the question is do you want a snake oil salesman that thinks the world revolves around him and has a record of disasters, death and waste, or do you want someone with a track record of community service, ie giving his personal time to protect us and helping the needy. The choice has never been so clear.

GJA:

22 Aug 2013 2:25:16pm

All due credit to Mr. Abbott's charity work, but that isn't politics or governance. It is, insofar as he publishes his record, self-aggrandising, but remains irrelevant, except that you've bought his message as if it had some bearing on his fitness for office instead of his physical fitness.

John:

22 Aug 2013 5:00:44pm

That's simply untrue and unfair, GJA.

Abbott was doing a great deal of community and support work before becoming such a public figure, and he still does a lot of volunteer work about which very few people are aware, at locations without a camera or a reporter in sight and for many good causes.

I have been served a sausage sandwich by Tony Abbott manning a barbecue at a surf life saving club function, and there was no self-aggrandisement or publicity seeking there because it was a fairly small club with limited membership.

Jenny:

22 Aug 2013 11:12:14am

And Rudd spent three years damaging the ALP so he could force them to take him back as PM and he used the same NSW right faction that knifed him, to achieve it. The prize for the most negative, treacherous and spiteful PM is Rudd's by a country mile.

Sly Place:

22 Aug 2013 11:27:44am

Absolute rubbish Mr Smith. Kevin Rudd lost the majority support of his party. A leadership spill was called, he did not contest the ballot because he did not have the numbers. Julia Gillard did, and won the leadership. How is that tearing anyone down? You're using dramatic language to obscure the truth and deliberately so by the look of it.

GJA:

22 Aug 2013 2:27:03pm

I have long believed that the LNP was moving in this direction and that Abbott will finish what Howard started. We will see an end to universal health coverage and be back where the US has long been just as they start to do something positive. Abbott wants to put a knife in Medicare and you sound like you want to help.

Alpo:

22 Aug 2013 8:46:16am

tc21, get real... very many Liberals and especially Nationals hate the Coalition under Abbott, but they will pretend not to sense the stench and vote as they have always done. Same with Labor, some may disagree with Rudd and would have loved Gillard, but we will vote Labor anyway, because the alternative Abbott Government would be equivalent to the destruction of civil, just and democratic life in Australia (are you ready to "shut up" under an Abbott Government? That's what they are going to tell you to do). This has become the battle of the Populisms, because there is a virtual 50/50 stalemate and both sides of politics are fighting like mad to swing extreme political minorities to their side.

Alpo:

22 Aug 2013 1:32:35pm

You don't read mainstream newspapers, Smith, do you? Read them, and also watch certain TV programs and listen to radio programs and you will understand what I mean.... taking those blinkers off will help, though.

firthy:

gt:

22 Aug 2013 8:56:07am

I'd really like to think that your opening statement was correct. A win for a Gilard government would have been the most positive of all the possible outcomes. However your and my wishes needed to take into account that this petty, spiteful little man and his delusional supporters would have kept on undermining and white anting all the way to the polls.

I have a strong feeling that come September 7 the ALP will find out to its dismay that in re-electing KR as leader they chose the worst possible option and that they will record an election result at least as bad as the worst of the projections made when Julia Gillard was still PM.

The good news there is that we will be rid of Rudd. He won't survive long. He and his narcissistic control freak ways will be consigned to the dustbin of history.

The bad news is that we'll be stuck with Abbott and a rag-tag collection of right wing ideologues along with their empty 'the poor are poor by choice etc' cliches.

The worse news is that this whole sorry episode has come at the expense of our losing a genuine, committed, compassionate leader in Julia Gillard. I wish her well in whatever future she chooses.

din:

22 Aug 2013 8:56:55am

The better leader does whats best for the country, not for themselves

Any leader who questions increasing the pension since there are no votes in it are just plain bad. You can question if the country can afford it. You can question if the money can be better spend on something else, but dont just look at everything as 'whats in it for me'.

"She also allegedly questioned the $14 billion cost of the pension increase on the grounds "elderly voters did not support Labor".

Stirrer:

22 Aug 2013 9:12:23am

Sorry tc21-it is not so much as Rudd's ego which has or will rip Labor apart but the ALP itself -its MPs-its organisation and its rank and file- maybe more to the point-the cowardice of all.it failed to take on the neo liberals- that is probably because like them it is a prisoner to their economics and it joined the LNP in the race ot the bottom- it surrendered our values to the fringe- be it the fringe of monied bullies- misognists-racists=shock jocks or just plain ego centrics like team Rudd.It do not defend reason, justice, fairness, equity and decency. It was too damn scared of opinion polls and MSM. It had no poetry -no vision- no niceness.

Felix:

Simon:

22 Aug 2013 10:12:18am

Labor would have won under Gillard?!?!? Are you serious? Labor would have been reduced to minor party status under Gillard. Rudd, for all his obvious faults, will at least see that Labor will only be comfortably defeated at the election, not completely annihilated.

John:

Greg:

22 Aug 2013 8:08:45am

They made him leader, then they came to despise him, they then deposed him, he then tried to wreck the next election (and largely succeeded), he then tried to wreck his party's next 3 years of parliament (and largely succeeded), then because his treason had been so successfully damaging they invited him back to lead them in the next election! Crikey. Bizarre. I understand and appreciate well a journalist's ethical position regarding revealing sources. These events are a graphic example of where the interests of the community suffer for that ethic. Lets assume (as I do) that Rudd leaked like a sieve to Laurie Oakes in such a treasonous and poisonous manner. Wouldn't the public interest be very well served by them knowing / having it confirmed that Rudd is that sort of man. The community would turn their backs on that sort of man (wouldn't they?).

Simon:

MJMI:

22 Aug 2013 11:42:02am

Totally agree.

If you want to know more about the background read Kerry Anne Walsh's book The Stalking of Julia Gillard. I was horrified and saw clearly the role of Rudd, his party acolytes and the incompetent journalists who published their every leak.

I was so disgusted that I have chosen not to vote in this election. Previously a Labor voter I cannot now support the present PM nor most of his main cabinet ministers and fellow leakers.

ursus augustus:

22 Aug 2013 8:19:37am

Jonathon, the simple fact is that Labor have been a dysfunctional, treacherous, bumbling, stumbling, myopic rabble for the past 6 years on any rational assessment. That they might have got some good policy onto the table fair enough but even the best of that is offset by the fact that it is massively expensive and apparently unfunded. There are shades of Whitlam about this stuff, feel good but expensive and feeding the sense of universal entitlement, of life as a constant journey through a supermarket which is just bad, bad, bad for a human to have as an attitude.

Mark James:

22 Aug 2013 10:16:12am

"Expensive and feeding the sense of universal entitlement"?

Say what?

And $75,000 for women of calibre isn't feeding a sense of universal entitlement?

ursus, when Rudd capped the baby bonus in 2008 for those earning over $150,000, the Coalition attacked him for being "anti-children". Then Coalition leader, Brendan Nelson, said "We should not live in an Australia where Mr Rudd thinks that some babies are more valuable than others.''

Later, when Labor sought to means-test the Private Health Rebate, claimed by predominently high-income earners, and which was costing Australia $5 billion a year, they were attacked relentlessly by the Coalition and News Ltd for apparently engaging in "class-warfare".

Labor has actually been attempting to prune (albeit cautiously), this immense "universal entitlement" that took root under Howard, and have been attacked every time, without fail, by the Coalition and News Ltd.

GJA:

Jj:

22 Aug 2013 8:21:29am

I don't understand the notion that a quote hung parliament was because voters couldn't decide. Surely we did decide - we wanted a balance, not just one side or the other. Fleetingly, we seemed to be a more mature electorate than the next three years showed us really to be - small minded, resentful, gleefully gossiping, leaping to assumptions rather than examining evidence and options - and worst of all, like sheep following the empty opinions of Australia's journalists rather than insisting that they do their job and provide reportage, or opinion based on investigation, rather than gossip.

MJMI:

22 Aug 2013 11:50:22am

I agree. I don't buy the notion that we, as individuals, were undecided. We, as a nation, were almost equally divided between two major parties: about half of us wanted one but definitely not the other. But that does not mean that we were undecided as individual voters casting a ballot.

I don't see a lot of evidence that many of us have changed. Except perhaps that more of us are now disenchanted with both leaders. Now we don't care much for one leader and definitely don't want the other as PM. As always some swinging voters in some marginal electorates will decide the outcome, possible on the basis of which leader they dislike less.

firthy:

Sydney Bob:

22 Aug 2013 8:22:54am

I think there is a pattern here. There have been several times in State and Federal politics where the Government is unpopular but the opposition puts up a leader who is totally un-electable and the Government goes on to win the election. However, at the next election the opposition puts up a small target leader and goes on to win, usually in a landslide. We saw this with Keating, Hewson and Howard. We saw it in NSW and in the last Queensland election.

I think Howard would have lost the 2004 election if the Labor party had not put up Mark Latham. Hence, at the 2007 election when Kevin Rudd was put up as leader he won easily. So Kevin Rudd was the beneficiary of timing in 2007. He was the so-called drover?s dog. All the talk about Kevin Rudd being a great campaigner is missed placed.

MJMI:

22 Aug 2013 11:53:07am

Good point. Just because Rudd won in 2007 doesn't make him a great leader or a great campaigner. I think that he was neither. And it took some time for his many flaws to become obvious and widely known.

meredith:

22 Aug 2013 8:28:14am

Australia lost a great PM in Julia Gillard who was brought low not just by Kevin Rudd but by the malign forces in the Murdoch press. Rudd is finding now just how tough it is to move forward with the continuing innuendo and hyperbole of the daily press articles. For those of us that still believe in the finer principles of just what Labor's agenda brings to this country, there is a frightening sense that Abbott will be the next PM after this election.

gnome:

22 Aug 2013 10:36:05am

Gillard might have been a good PM, but in shattering a major election promise days after the election she destroyed her credibility. Democracy can only work if we can trust the promises the pollies make and throw them out if they break them.

Simon:

22 Aug 2013 10:48:22am

Gillard a great PM? Are you serious? She was the worst PM we've ever seen (even worse than Whitlam).

As for your claim that the Murdoch press brought Julia down, I'd like to see to some proof, not unfounded biased opinions. Julia Gillard was hugely unpopular and deeply hated in the community because of her policies and because of her performance. Fact.

burke:

frangipani:

22 Aug 2013 12:44:57pm

Well, it seems to me that, whether Rudd is elected or Abbott is, there will be no ALP agenda. Rudd will do whatever Rudd thinks will keep him in power, and if that means backtracking on everything the ALP stands for, he'll do that too. His record has been pretty consistent in that regard.

Myanard:

22 Aug 2013 8:29:16am

What is Abbott going to cut?Or do we have another socialist here who will Ruddlike have rising deficits and more humongeous debt?I suspect that Abbott is a serious fiscal conservative just like Rudd and that $400Bn of debt is a mere trifle.My ALP must sack Rudd and cut, cut, cut to the bone fairly as opposed to misogynist Abbott absolutely throwing money at pregnant women that we cannot afford. Who does he think that he is? A green with his increased company tax not mining focussed? Christine where are you in our time of need?Only the ALP can get surplii and pay down debt fairly but my ALP needs another nation building act just as they sacked Gillard they must now sack Rudd. He has put the nation at risk with his deficits, debt & refugee deaths. Will Rudd apologise for this mayhem that he has wrought?Rudd is a dangerous narcissist who will ruin the ALP and will never step down until we are utterly destroyed by him.We must rebuild the ALP prior to socialist Abbott's double dissolution.We can campaign on Fairness as we must, Cut, Cut, Cut to the Bone to face the greatest moral crisis of our time...half a trillion dollars of debt brought on by Socialist Abbott in his budgie smuggles and pregnancy leave overlaid with stealing from Working Families and increased company tax.Gotta zip & shuddup with a selfie. Bring it on.

Julia B:

22 Aug 2013 11:23:55am

The difference is Rudd has cut thousands out of the civil service and there were another 900 announced today yet the unions have remained quiet. The ALP then has the arrogance to say that it is horrific that Abbott will cut the civil service when the reality is that Rudd has made most of the cuts probably intended by Abbott AND Abbott was going to use natural attrition unlike Rudd who has been sacking people. We also know that if the current cuts had been by an LNP government, the unions would be holding daily strikes and street marches.

Maynard:

22 Aug 2013 2:58:26pm

This is my point Julia B.Rudd will destroy the ALP.This is why the unions are not protesting at the Rudd sackings.Rudd is a dangerous narcissist will destroy anything to hold on to power. Especially working families.Expect many more Rudd sackings of the workers in working families, now replaced with modern families where no one works.

Jen:

Alpo:

22 Aug 2013 8:33:41am

Sorry Jonathan, this time I have to disagree with you. The best way to understand the recent historical events and the fall of Julia Gillard is to listen to the words of those who strongly supported her but changed to Rudd in the end: She had been framed by the pro-Opposition Media in such a way that she had just reached a point of no return. Not because a vast majority was against her and didn't understand the good work she had done, but because a crucial minority, that could eventually swing back to Labor, had just stopped listening. Hence the change. The change, in a very important way, was not to give Rudd "satisfaction" but to salvage the great achievements and the future program of the Labor Government, including the achievements of the Gillard Labor Government itself. She will remembered as a great reformer, an extremely skilful negotiator and one of the victims of Murdoch, Rinehart et al. Media Dictatorship.Her great work and ultimate sacrifice will be vindicated if Abbott loses, IF Abbott wins .... the People will be told to "shut up" and may your god help you all.

Simon:

Alpo:

22 Aug 2013 1:37:06pm

Simon, dream your wonderful dream, mate. As for us, we are realists and what we see in the room is the danger of a recessionist Abbott Government. But don't worry mate, by returning the Labor Government we will help you, the Liberal voters, keep your jobs... although we won't expect to be thanked for that.

Keneth S:

Alpo, blaming someone else, even the media, never helps anyone. You move all 'problems' outside you control and leave yourself to the whim of the external factors.

I have different view of the reasons for Gillard's 'sacrifice':

1. Extremely poor political strategy brought about by inept advisers. People simply could not accept that the most powerful person in the country would play a victim. She was poorly advised to play gender and class wars. That never plays well with the Australian people.

2. She was unfortunate to have the most vicious and treacherous person amongst Labor ranks who spent the last three years tearing the entire Labor apart for his own selfish gratification. Under normal circumstances any Party leader would sack such openly treacherous person and get on with the job. Unfortunately, being a minority government, Gillard could not do so and had to put up with ongoing whiteanting within her own ranks.

You would have guessed, I have nothing but absolute respect and admiration for Julia Gillard. Under normal circumstances, she would have made one of the most of the most capable PMs ever.

You would have also guessed, I have nothing but contempt for the shallow, treacherous, non Labor person who is currently leading our great party.

frangipani:

Frank:

22 Aug 2013 2:39:00pm

Gee if we put all of Labor hacks excuses together it would make for an epic movie "Tall tales and True, From Labor's Legendary Past" or some other fairy tale. Rudd was smirking after his revenge, and Gillard (of course) will have the last laugh. In the end both of them will be rolling in laughter at the taxpayers who will be funding both of their luxurious lifestyles for the rest of their miserable lives. A joke on all of us and "true Labor values" in todays world of greed. Both claim to be "in public service" but the truth of the matter is both have been and continue to be nothing but leaches on the Australian Public Purse. Until now Gough Whitlam was the biggest Labor rorter (because of his longevity) but I fear he will be overtaken by this latest lot. It's time to curb the pain on taxpayers, and reduce Politicians across the board by half.

firthy:

22 Aug 2013 2:56:01pm

What is so flawed about posts like this is that at no point do they recognise that the government got anything wrong. Now every government will get things wrong from time to time. But the Rudd/Gillard/Rudd government simply refused to admit it made any mistakes even when they were obvious (the rolled gold surplus promise for example). Reasonable people would have forgiven them for making some of those mistakes. But no it was blame everyone else rather than stand up and say "yep we got it wrong". Peter Beatie did this many times and he was pretty popular for a while.

big joe:

22 Aug 2013 7:06:31pm

"A crucial minority stopped listening"? What BS Alpo, everyone stopped listening, thats why Kevvie made his move and succeeded. You are so rusted on that you can't even bring your self to admit that it was Rudd and his henchmen who knifed Gillard, do stop trying to blame others who had nothing to do with it. You're starting to become tiresome with your endless litany of lies and half truths.

PaulK:

22 Aug 2013 8:59:36am

If Rudd had left the ALP and Gillard alone for the last 3 years Gillard and her Govt very possibly could have won this election.Rudd has done the work of an opposition to his own Party and Govt. This man is dangerous, vengeful and full of revenge.Kevin Rudd cares about no one except Kevin Rudd.He likes to say Abbott isn't fit to be PM. Actually it's quite the opposite.

Nothing To See Here:

22 Aug 2013 9:01:55am

Kevs revenge upon Julia will be a permanent stain on the ALP as a political party. Its desperation to retain power knows no bounds with their " anything goes " policy.Kev will be the funnelweb in the underpants of the ALP so long as he is there.Hopefully the people will see Kev for what he is and gain their own revenge for his duplicity and his destruction of a once great party.

Mark James:

22 Aug 2013 12:01:41pm

Alternatively, Clowny, they could indicate that, although Gillard opposed the polices for good reason, she's a team player and stood behind the majority decision.

And that's exactly what Abbott did when, despite apparently opposing WorkChoices, he then went on to offer support for government policy (see, for example, "Church takes wrong turn opposing Work Choices" by Tony Abbott in The Australian - July 17, 2007).

Would you now be so consistent as to bag Abbott for "opportunistic, untrustworthy and deceiftul" behaviour?

Gone to the races:

22 Aug 2013 9:10:26am

Jonathan, Julia Gillard came and went and the strange thing is that it feels like she was never even in the room. This has nothing to do with gender. The Governor General Quentin Bryce commands the space she occupies. Her presence is palpable. Gillard seems like a ghost. At least the electorate is aware of Rudd and Abbott.

Horrocks:

22 Aug 2013 9:24:51am

as I wrote elsewhere it's almost as if the Alp think they have managed to wield a huge version of the white light mind obliterator from men in Black, pfft last 6 years are gone, never existed, we are still in Opposition and have to defeated the big bad Mr Abbott

well we will just have to wait and see, hopefully all the negativity from the ALp will not work and we will get a bunch of adults in charge again, especially as the adults in the ALp such as Smith, Crean and Ferguson have decided to call it quit's

firthy:

22 Aug 2013 3:05:36pm

You have touched on a sad part in all this mess - good ministers and good people like Smith, Ferguson and Crean are gone from the ALP. I like Bowen - maybe he can repair the ALP if they lose. If they win? Well that is a scary thought indeed.

Margaret:

22 Aug 2013 9:29:36am

I agree with Jonathon on this one. From the moment Kevin Rudd was deposed as prime minister (and I thought this was shocking) and Julia Gillard became the elected prime minister, Rudd went to work.He sat on the back bench and even when he was Foreign Minister and plotted, he hated her that much!He had help, such people like the "esteemed" Laurie Oakes and other journalists, plus members of Gillards own cabinet, who managed to skew most things she said or attempted to say.The public , of course, fell for this, they were listening to news presumably reported by honest respected people in front line media.Of course, Gillard made mistakes and very stupid ones at times, but you have to wonder, was she deliberately fed stupid advice so she would trip up?Were comments, ideas, statements she made not reported correctly or fully to skew her message? e.g. "There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead, but let me be clear; I will be putting a price on carbon and I will move to an emissions trading scheme"I was not a fan of Julia Gillard, but, a book by Kerry-Anne Walsh, on "The Stalking of Julia Gillard" and what she had to deal with from Rudd and his camp has made me reconsider the reasons I disliked her.I find the whole media circus in Australia, sad, disappointing and I am quite disillusioned.Rudd, to me, is malicious and extremely self centred and the last person I would like to see back as prime minister.Heaven help Australia if he comes back a third time!

Cherna:

22 Aug 2013 9:50:55am

There is no doubt about it Jonathan that Rudd sabotaged the 2010 - this was confirmed by none other than Gillard herself as well as Conroy and Swan.

Had Rudd not sabotaged Gillard the political landscape and future would have changed dramatically. Gillard would have won the election (2010) in her own right, there would have no need for the carbon tax lie, and policy would have developed quite differently without any influence from the fringe dwellers (Greens and Independents).

Today the result would have been Gillard debating Abbott and all probability the polls would have been in Labor's favour, as they usually are, with the incumbent.

In short Rudd's vindictive nature and consuming hatred of Gillard was unbounded - matter not that he does damage to the Labor party; such was his venom.

It didn't stop there did it? Without so much of a concern for what he was doing to the Party his viscous attacks on Gillard continued with the sole purpose of getting back into power resulting in a most divisive and destabilising period in Labor's history; so much so that Labor MP's called Rudd called a "psychopath, a control freak, megalomaniac, egocentric... " (and a lot more)

Did Rudd would give any consideration to the damage he was doing to Labor. He did not!

Rudd continued to do damage the party through division and destabilisation to the point that front bench MP's began resigning in hordes.

Yet other MP's (Shorten, Macklin, Burke, Elis, Plibersek, Wong and the best of the lot , 'backflip' Perrett who promised us he would immediately quit parliament and force a bi election if Rudd took over...) vowed not to serve under Rudd; but in a show of political expediency and hypocrisy they all went back on their word and are to be found at feet of the almighty one.

Has Sussex Street and Labor really forgotten why they politically assassinated him in 2010? I'll bet most have not forgotten that under his tenure by 2010 he had Labor at a 30% approval rating...

If the current polls drop any further they'll come to realise that Gillard could have done a better job because for one she had a legislative record of success to point to. Rudd has none!

Bob G:

22 Aug 2013 9:58:59am

Thanks for an enlightening editorial. I have believed for some time that Rudd's real agenda is the demolition of the current Labor Party with the ambition to become the Grand Leader of a renewed Party. He is really in it for Rudd and not for Australia.

Bighead1883:

22 Aug 2013 10:08:02am

The political ascension of the alpha abounds in all parties.So it`s rehash is just that,leftovers.What`s important is that Australians see that their support for a prospective government that so blatantly cares only for the rich be stopped.How any who work earning a wage and are not of the entitled set can vote LNP is beyond me."LOOK EVERYONE" that mob over there are wolves wearing the skins of our dead brethren,the head ram Rudd shouts out.So take head.

Huonian:

22 Aug 2013 10:20:40am

The big break for Kevin Rudd is that he hasn't got Kevin Rudd white anting him during the election campaign. And he knows that Julia Gillard is a far better person than he is, and would never do to him during this campaign what he did to her in 2010.

Ther Labor Party faithful will remain totally committed and loyal to Kevin Rudd - until about 7.30pm on Saturday 7 September.

Brad:

22 Aug 2013 10:29:57am

You have to give to Rudd as a great Aussie 'B'attler with a capital B. He does shut up and he doesn't give up. Here he is, still trying to complete his first full term as Prime Minister, despite the formidable obstructions from both within and outside of his own party.

Jim:

22 Aug 2013 10:47:23am

Of course, the same thing hindered Julie Gillard's 2010 election campaign - the Rudd govt had its problems, but it had also done some good things over the past three years but Gillard couldn't really mention those good things during her campaign without then being asked, "So why did you need to oust Rudd as PM, then?"

Out for nowt:

22 Aug 2013 10:52:19am

Jonathan it does seem that this is precisely the negative repetition of past politics by the media that we've heard adnauseum.

I actually think its rather fictitious to say K Rudd is ignoring Gillards legacy. The number of times he brings up labors legacy in health and education and his own efforts to implement what Gillard was doing in the later. No?

Ill be voting Green in both houses this election so I'm no Rudd cheer squad member, but this article really does little other than churn the utilitarian pistons of the media cycle.

Asceptic:

22 Aug 2013 10:55:04am

All of which points to Kevin Rudd being a cunning and ruthless operator. He probably learned it in diplomat school.Frankly having such a character could be construed as an asset.It really hinges on who he actually represents.

Dove:

22 Aug 2013 1:25:44pm

They are both cunning and ruthless. Both got their jobs by stabbing their bosses in the back. But that's politics for you- it attracts the wrong kinds of people and then brings out the worst in them. This is why no-one cares about the LNP costings, because everyone knows they'll just be imaginary numbers. This is why no-one cares about the invisible money Rudd is pretending to doll about the place. They both lie. As have thir leaders before them. When they've finished their sordid electioneering they'll settle back to the real business of running the country for the benefit of those that fund them. Check the public record for the details.

Colmery:

22 Aug 2013 11:23:18am

Next we will see articles about interpersonal scuttlebutt inside the ABC Sure there are people who will read this stuff, even some who get worked up about it, but it's not up to the standard a publicly funded broadcaster should demand.

GDee:

22 Aug 2013 11:23:36am

I'm surprised that people haven't realised that Rudd is the most hated leader, by his own party, than any other in Australian history.He was put in to save the furniture not win. Shorten is the one they want because of the same reasons that they got rid of Rudd in the first place, nobody can work with him.They see Abbott as a one term PM and if Rudd wins they're stuck with him for the whole term and the disunity will see them voted out for a long time after the next election.The risk of the unions losing power within the ALP with Rudd at the helm will be too great to risk and to sack an elected PM again would be impossible.Therefore I think that if Rudd hits the lead in the polls his enemies will start doing to him what he did to Gillard hoping he will win just enough seats to keep them competitive so their man Bill has a chance at being the next Labor PM in 2016.It's just my opinion though. I could be wrong but I could also be right.

MJMI:

There is a host of apt quotes to fit Kevin Rudd's situation ranging from the biblical: As ye sow, so shall ye reap to the modern self-help: what goes round, comes round.

Kerry Anne Walsh has detailed the behaviour of Rudd and his fellow drip leakers and of a host of journalists who swallowed their every word or thought bubble. Their combined actions were despicable.

I was a rusted-on Labor voter but Rudd and his mates behaved so appallingly towards our first woman PM. The office itself deserved respect, regardless of the incumbent. So this time I will not vote. I dislike Rudd and Abbott almost equally, although for different reasons. Neither will get my vote.

David Nicholas:

22 Aug 2013 11:28:09am

Jonathon, it's been interesting watching Kevin Rudd and how he has ignored Jula Gillard.

i really dislike anally-retentive cohabiters who leech the energy of big picture visionaries and then ignore the contribution of policies which matter to me. So here we are, Rudd trying to sound like Gillard in broad voice but never quite closing the deal.

I really miss Gillard, the country being run by the matriarchy is a much more civil experience. She loved a fight and most of the time she won the war.

All I can say if Rudd loses this election it's because he was complacent and refused to listen to his handlers until very late in this race. The loss is on him. He can't blame Gillard for his stuff up.

I see Gilard now sitting in her new multi-million house relishing how this race is going. I appreciate her silence, she knows what she gave this country, pity her Labor colleagues blinded by their own ambitions didn't see it. So it goes.

Keneth S:

22 Aug 2013 11:30:47am

As a true Labor man - I intensely hate Kevin Rudd. He is shallow narcissist with no substance at all. He is extremely arrogant, selfish, vicious and treacherous and never could work with other people. What worries me the most - he is simply not a Labor person. He is multimillionaire, with beach houses on Queensland coast, he is anti union and he is openly distancing himself from Labor values. God forbid if a person like that could ever again lead Labor party. He would lead us into the oblivion.

Philosopher:

22 Aug 2013 12:05:09pm

The Australian people have come to understand that the ALP and the Libs have occupied a centrist position and agree on the economic destruction of Australia for their own self interest and lobby groups. The movement to new political parties has a large groundswell of support. The Nationals sense it in the regions and their HQ is completely out of touch with them. This election will be game changing with the change in the Senate composition and also on the cross benches. These rusted on ALP and Lib supporters we see in these columns will be simply out of their depth. Katter was right; it should have done long ago. He said if you free trade and no one else does you simply destroy your own country and that is what has happened from Hawke and Keating though Howard and the sale of our manufacturing potential though the stupidity of the Union ALP and Coalition greed. Things are about to change.

AJM:

22 Aug 2013 12:17:42pm

With Abbott what you see is what you get.You may not like every (or even any) aspect but his main strength and what will prove to be the foundation of his long term success is his lack of a fabricated persona.Conversely that is what will bring the frustrated Rudd to the position he fears the most - a historical assessment as having been a mediocre intellectual pretender.

RosieA:

22 Aug 2013 12:20:32pm

I always enjoy your articles Jonathan but find myself wondering at your comment: "If a vote is some concrete manifestation of the national dream state, then ours amounted to a sleepy study in indifference. Running between two doors, and choosing neither. Then falling, unconvinced, betwixt and between". This implies that you see failure to elect either of the major parties with an outright majority as reflecting indifference/indecision that resulted in some sort of non-descript nothingness that was neither one nor the other. There is also the implication that this was not desirable. I think I very much disagree.

Firstly, that neither side won a clear majority indicated that the majority of Australians were not behind one or other of the major parties. This does not necessarily reflect indifference, nor indecision. Clearly neither of the major parties had a "platform" that was acceptable to a majority of people. As a result, a government could only be formed by the major parties negotiating alternative "platforms" with all combinations of political affiliations possible, but not all acceptable to those elected, of course. Compromise was essential and compromise was reached. It is the view of many that the resultant legislation was improved by the need for consultation (compromise) and by the fact that neither side could do entirely as they pleased. It was actually a win for government for the benefit of all Australians, in other words, for democracy.

Why is it that Australians seem to have lost the capacity to see complexity in the issues we face and the consequent need for discussion and compromise? Why do we have a "winner takes all mentality" and like the idea that there should only be two "sides", one of which gains the right to impose their views on the rest of the country? This is an underlying issue in Egypt's current problems. It is not the basis for a functional society, nor is it what democracy is fundamentally about. It is unlikely that many people fully agree with all the policies of any one party......to be truly democratic we need a parliament that reflects the plurality of views.

For me, the concept of either of the major parties with their current incumbents, holding a majority (complete power) is frightening. I hope that once again we vote for a parliament in which compromise will be essential. This is anything but indifference on my part......it is a definite preference.

Michael:

R. Ambrose Raven:

22 Aug 2013 12:41:53pm

It couldn't happen to a more deserving bloke.

Many blame Julia Gillard and non-Rudd Labor for a June leadership contest they certainly didn't want.

Only the Rudd Revenge component was All About Julia. Relentless the attacks certainly were, but they comprised not only Rudd's Revenge but also a ferocious mainstream media campaign perverting reality into entertainment, the bloodlust of the pack of hyenas for wounded prey, and most particularly, the filthy rich (and a dependent media that knows very well who funds it) wanting a government that will protect their ill-gotten gains from thirty years of the debt-driven asset-bubble plunder. Part of the agenda was clearly to remake the ALP as a business-owned party, in which unions, unionists, and working people deserved no say.

It was also a demonstration of the folly of expediency. Had the ALP had a clear philosophical goal plus parliamentary members who valued good policy, they could have remained loyal to themselves, Julia, the Party, and the nation; not only has Gillard Labor done some very good things, but also the media could not have worked anything like as successfully to undermine Labor without much support from pro-Rudd rats.

Recall that Julia010 becoming leader of the first government since 1931 not to be re-elected in its own right had plenty to do with others. Karl Bitar - the former NSW general secretary who ran a feeble and uninspiring campaign (and went straight over to the pokies industry to become the wrecker-in-chief of Wilkie's anti-pokie thrust). Mark Arbib - the plotter-in-chief against Rudd - was largely missing (though perhaps less damaging than being largely present) systematically sabotaging the campaign nevertheless (later going over to the pokies industry). Given their treachery, it was a pity that Julia010 nevertheless remained loyal to Big Gambling.

But seventeen days of negotiation with the Independents and Greens led to Julia Gillard being PM. Notwithstanding that Tony Abbott would have done anything to get the prize, the Greens and Independents judged him to be the less suitable. He lost; note that Anthony Albanese's description of him having subjected us to "the longest dummy-spit in Australian political history", the same could fairly be said of His Kevin.

Julia Gillard had managed to do what many commentators were very happy to be persuaded was beyond her; survive the circumstances of her ascension to the job, survive the vicious personal attacks on her by some leading members of the opposition (including Tony Abbot) and Hard Right mainstream media commentators, and - until Rudd wrecked it after Jan '13 - give Labor a fighting chance in September 2013.

IanM:

22 Aug 2013 1:18:10pm

If nothing else you must admire the discipline of the now invisible Julia Gillard. None of the nasty leaks we saw at the last election, emanating from.... oh yes, the current candidate. About Rudd's leaks Peter Beattie said "no one should ever forget the damage that he has done". Short memories!

Objective :

22 Aug 2013 1:27:59pm

This election is about the economy and who is seen as most competent to lead. The electorate generally gets it right. They see the deficit and instability and think it is time for a change. Many believe all politicians are bad so giving the others a go is not a big deal.

GraemeF:

Julia Gillard did not 'lead' a government in her own right. She out negotiated Tony Abbott to do a deal with the conservative independents.

She didn't know she would have to form a coalition in a hung parliament so she didn't lie when she said 'there would be no carbon tax under a government I lead'.

The false accusation that Gillard lied was happily repeated by the media time and time again. The media and the Opposition lied, not Julia Gillard.

The Opposition lied and smeared Gillard with total acquiescence of a lazy media who countered facts of good government with lies about 'the worst government ever'. Without that, Rudd would not have stood a chance.

R. Ambrose Raven:

22 Aug 2013 2:08:51pm

It couldn?t happen to a more deserving bloke.

Many blame Julia Gillard and non-Krudd Labor for a June leadership contest they certainly didn't want.

Only the Rudd Revenge component was All About Julia. Relentless the attacks certainly were, but they comprised not only Rudd?s Revenge but also a ferocious mainstream media campaign perverting reality into entertainment, the bloodlust of the pack of hyenas for wounded prey, and most particularly, the filthy rich (and a dependent media that knows very well who funds it) wanting a government that will protect their ill-gotten gains from thirty years of the debt-driven asset-bubble plunder. Part of the agenda was clearly to remake the ALP as a business-owned party, in which unions, unionists, and working people deserved no say.

It was also a demonstration of the folly of expediency. Had the ALP had a clear philosophical goal plus parliamentary members who valued good policy, they could have remained loyal to themselves, Julia, the Party, and the nation; not only has Gillard Labor done some very good things, but also the media could not have worked anything like as successfully to undermine Labor without much support from pro-Rudd rats.

Recall that Julia010 becoming leader of the first government since 1931 not to be re-elected in its own right had plenty to do with others. Karl Bitar - the former NSW general secretary who ran a feeble and uninspiring campaign (and went straight over to the pokies industry to become the wrecker-in-chief of Wilkie?s anti-pokie thrust). Mark Arbib - the plotter-in-chief against Rudd - was largely missing (though perhaps less damaging than being largely present) systematically sabotaging the campaign nevertheless (later going over to the pokies industry). Given their treachery, it was a pity that Julia010 nevertheless remained loyal to Big Gambling.

But seventeen days of negotiation with the Independents and Greens led to Julia Gillard being PM. Notwithstanding that Tony Abbott would have done anything to get the prize, the Greens and Independents judged him to be the less suitable. He lost; note that Anthony Albanese?s description of him having subjected us to ?the longest dummy-spit in Australian political history?, the same could fairly be said of His Kevin.

Julia Gillard had managed to do what many commentators were very happy to be persuaded was beyond her; survive the circumstances of her ascension to the job, survive the vicious personal attacks on her by some leading members of the opposition (including Tony Abbot) and Hard Right mainstream media commentators, and - until Rudd wrecked it after Jan ?13 - give Labor a fighting chance in September 2013.

Steve Mount:

22 Aug 2013 2:13:02pm

Aaah, yes the good old 'Rudd or his cohorts leaked' gem. Much heralded, quoted and fussed over, but not one ounce of evidence from anyone, including Laurie Oakes. 'Source confidentiality', they claim. Yeah, maybe, but possibly a front to allow outlandish, unsubstantiated claims, to garner maximum headline impact, for press hacks same.

As for the Rudd / Gillard complex : Rudd was good enough to defeat the Coalition Government, and unseat the sitting PM, which is no mean feat. By those measures alone, he deserved a shot at the next election.

Sin number one for Labor, was to turf him out as they did : a bunch of thankless morons.

Sin number two was to install Gillard, who was, and is, a self declared feminist. Fine and acceptable, in a personal sense, but the 'Women For Gillard' event was cringeworthy. Regardless of a nation's leaders gender, it is unacceptable to resort to gender issues. It was bound to implode.

Sin number three was an attempt to undo sin number one, and re-install Rudd, when it was already far too late. This time, not thankless morons, just morons.

If Labor gets a thrashing at the upcoming election, they deserve it, for being such self-concerned, faithless, fickle, short-term worshippers. Perhaps next time they elect a leader, especially one who leads them to election victory, they will temper their myopic impatience.

Amazed of Prejudice Forming:

22 Aug 2013 2:45:19pm

A "prejudice" is "developing" in a major political party.

A prejudice based on what a newspaper can call you without actually talking to you to find out your circumstances. Not based on intelligence, motive, or innocence. Presumed guilty in a category so ill-defined.

Divisive, prejudicial. They have to go.

This comes from an article on the ABC web page 10/07/2013.

"The decree that property developers are not to be eligible to stand for pre-selection is so typical of the Rudd style immediately after 2007. How can you rationally exclude one legally constituted profession from the political processes? What next? Used car salesmen, then journalists, perhaps?"

Anyone in Australia can act as the principal of a property development, hence potentially banned from participation. It is not simply a profession it is a huge cross section of the community.

Kitty:

22 Aug 2013 2:54:53pm

I respect Julia Gillard as a particularly strong leader, few could measure up to her qualities. Her inclusive policies centred on all Australians not just a few, her dignity and humour was amazing in the face of a hostile MSM, an anger/ hatred filled Opposition and the plotters behind her back.We are left with dumbed down politics. The MSM can look back at this time as being the showcase of their irrelevance and the time they joined in Abbott's mud bucket. I have absolutely no respect for journalists as they show no integrity.Australia is divided by fear, anger and hate we are no longer optimistic, sexism is accepted, racist rants are the norm and aggressive behaviour and language is an everyday occurrence.Every day we are fed Murdoch's narrative, voters will vote for his puppet, there will be no policies/ scrutiny, terms have been dictated, Abbott is all that is good.I would like to thank the boys of Riverview. They have stood up and called hypocrisy for what it is. Abbott wears his Catholicism, quotes religion, issues penances and screams discrimination if it is ever mentioned yet Muslim/asylum seeker bashing is fare game. I find his holier than thou attitude offensive both as a woman and as a Catholic.Time to talk policy, the good of the people, the influence of self interest and time for scrutiny of MSM.

Lehan Ramsay:

22 Aug 2013 2:57:25pm

We chose neither door? Fiddlesticks. We chose them both! It was mighty a good thing, about time that opposition did some actual work even if that actual work was saying No! No! No! YOU did! YOU didn't! WE did! WE didn't! Given that the whole system's gone to the gander again I just would like to see that happen AGAIN! So get with it neighbourhoods, even numbers for Labor, odd numbers for Liberal, all divisible numbers for independents, sausage sizzle for the blokes and as always a raffle for the ladies.

Buster:

22 Aug 2013 11:30:21pm

I've read with some amusement some of the 208 comments from both sides of the political fence. It's really quiet a pointless debate your all having. The comments from both sides apear to be well entrenched so what is the purpose? You will not convince a Liberal to vote Labor nor a Labor person to vote Liberal, no matter how good your argument. Get a life. And stop feeding the 24/7 news cycle, me included !